Monthly Archives: March 2007

AmerenCILCO, Illinois Commerce Commission

ICC demands explanation from Ameren

6 Comments

Ameren LogoThere’s been a lot of press coverage of Ameren’s threats since their bond rating was reduced to junk status by Moody’s Investors Service and the response by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). I’ve seen a lot of quotes from the ICC’s letter, but not the letter in its entirety. It is available online. You can read it by clicking the “Show More” link below, or see a scan of the actual letter on the ICC’s website in PDF format.

I’m glad the ICC is looking into this matter. It certainly appears that Ameren is playing games, and power is nothing to play games with. In today’s society we depend on electricity and gas for heat, cooling, cooking, and other vital needs. Especially gratifying were the parts of the letter that said the ICC expects Ameren to “suspend their common and preferred dividends” and “consider reductions in . . . executive compensation and promotional advertising” before cutting services.

It looks like, in their zeal to stave off attempts by the legislature to reimpose a rate freeze, Ameren went a bit overboard in their dire warnings of what might happen if their credit rating were to suffer. Apparently they didn’t anticipated the ICC would call them on it. The irony is that, in their attempt to rebuff rate regulation, they’re unintentionally making a case for it instead.

|inline

City Council, City of Peoria

City jobs are fleeting

26 Comments

The City of Peoria owns a lot of large, specialized vehicles (snow plows, backhoes, graders, fire trucks, etc.), and thus, they employ mechanics to maintain its fleet as well as professional drivers for CDL Truck Driving Positions. Now the city is looking to possibly outsource this service and lay off its 11 fleet maintenance employees. City Manager Randy Oliver justified this course of action in his Request for Council Action:

During the 2007 budget review sessions Council asked staff to continually seek opportunities to reduce service delivery costs. Fleet maintenance, an internal service provider, was an area discussed as a possible service where the City could potentially reduce costs and/or enhance service by contracting with a private vendor. The attached RFP [request for proposal] calls for a vendor to complete all the current fleet maintenance services provided by the Fleet Management Division of Public Works and the Fire Garage in the Fire Department. The vendor would use the City’s current tools and facilities at Dries Lane and Fire Station 8. The City would retain ownership of all the major repair equipment. Smaller hand tools would be the responsibility of the vendor.

Contracting is something that many governmental entities are considering. Cities contract out services generally to reduce costs and/or improve services. Seeking proposals will also serve as a measure to compare costs between in-house and private service delivery. While a change in service delivery may be justifiable on the basis of any cost savings, as a practical matter, however, the cost savings should be sufficient to justify the organizational change. Many local government agencies use a cost savings threshold to determine whether the change is worthwhile. An attached spreadsheet is how staff would determine any cost savings.

This has caused a firestorm of controversy, complete with accusations of union busting. At last night’s council meeting, the council voted 6-5 to defer this discussion until May 8 (after the election, incidentally) “to give labor and management time to discuss possible cost savings,” according to the Jennifer Davis’s report for the Journal Star.

The employees, of course, feel that they’re uniquely qualified to provide this service for the city and should be retained. That’s a good argument to make, and they may be proven right. I don’t think that these employees will get dumped if some private company comes in a dollar less than what it costs to provide services in-house. I’m confident their experience will be taken into consideration.

The employees also don’t want to lose their jobs, of course. They point out that these are good, head-of-household jobs, which is true. Even neighborhood activist LaVetta Ricca sprang to their defense last night:

“When this council wants new TIF areas or money for businesses, you all say these businesses are going to provide good-paying, head-of-household jobs – like Firefly (Energy’s inclusion in an Enterprise Zone) last week,” Ricca said. “Because, as you all say, this city depends on good-paying jobs. And now you’re saying you want to get rid of these guys, these guys who’ve lived here for years, who’ve been dedicated to this city. I really have a hard time understanding this.”

But this is a spurious argument. It’s not the city’s job to take taxpayer money and manufacture good-paying, head-of-household jobs. The city’s job is to provide the services residents need with the best balance of quality and value it can get. There are plenty of professional services that the city could bring in house but are more economical and fiscally-responsible to outsource to private companies. Fleet management should not get any special treatment — certainly not on the basis that they get paid so well. That’s the very reason the city manager is looking at outsourcing them!

TIFs and Enterprise Zones are tools the city uses to attract private investment and the good jobs that generates. Are TIFs and Enterprise Zones abused? I think so. But that’s not an argument for creating or maintaining in-house services that could be justifiably outsourced.

Peoria Journal Star

GateHouse Media buys Journal Star

4 Comments

GateHouse Media LogoThe speculating is over. GateHouse Media, owners of the Pekin Daily Times and the Canton Daily Ledger, have agreed to buy the Peoria Journal Star and six other daily newspapers owned by Copley Press for $380 million, according to the Journal Star’s report. The best analysis of this so far is on Billy’s blog — here and here.

As I see it, there are two main concerns with this transaction.

One is competition. By buying the papers in Peoria, Galesburg, Springfield, and Lincoln, while already owning newspapers in Pekin and Canton, they practically have a monopoly on central Illinois dailies, with the notable exception of the Bloomington Pantagraph. Media consolidation is generally not a good thing.

On the other hand, it raises the importance of sites like Peoria Pundits and the Peoria Chronicle. Citizen journalism provides more diversity of opinion in the marketplace and allows more opportunity for minority positions to get information out to the public.

The other concern is quality. As GateHouse consolidates its operations among the newly acquired papers, staff is going to get cut — the concern is whether so much staff will be cut that the paper won’t be able to cover as much local content as it does right now. That would be a real shame.

I do a fair amount of criticizing the editorial positions of the Journal Star, but when it comes to local coverage, no other media does a more thorough job. You get things in the paper that you just don’t get anywhere else — obituaries, real estate transactions, exhaustive coverage of professional and local sports including high school sports, arts coverage, neighborhood coverage, police/fire/courts coverage, etc. This is real asset to the city, and should be preserved.

UPDATE: Paul Gordon is singing GateHouse’s praises now. Well, technically he’s just reporting, but it sounds really upbeat, doesn’t it?

Bradley University, City Council, City of Peoria

Supermajority approves Bradley’s institutional plan

2 Comments

Rubber StampA while back, there was a motion to require a supermajority vote to approve institutional zoning boundary changes. That motion failed. As it turns out, that initiative was moot because Bradley’s request to change their boundaries passed 10-1 last night.

There was a lot of talk about the importance of strong neighborhoods last night. Bradley and the neighborhoods have a symbiotic relationship, it was said. Bradley needs the neighborhoods surrounding it to be strong because that’s a reflection on the university. The neighborhoods need the stabilizing force of the university to remain strong neighborhoods, they say.

If that’s true (and I think it is, theoretically), then why is Bradley doing so much damage to their relationship with the neighborhoods by their unilateral behavior? Why are they destabilizing the Arbor District — the neighborhood to their immediate west?

There can be no doubt that the Arbor District has been destabilized, despite any protestations to the contrary. The president of the Arbor District’s neighborhood association, Mr. Wagner, stood up at the meeting and told the council members that in the 800 block of Cooper alone, thirteen homes had been converted from single-family, owner-occupied residences to rentals. Is this Bradley’s idea of a stable neighborhood: One where owners are moving out and absentee landlords are buying up their property?

Bradley likes to portray itself as neighborhood-friendly, but only when it serves their purpose. In my opinion, they’re opportunistic. They point with pride to the public meetings last fall and this February when they “communicated” with the neighbors. But this was one-way communication, not two-way collaboration. The major components of their plan, such as the parking deck, were non-negotiable.

Marjorie Klise got it right when she said that the issue here is not just the ends, but the means. She gave the best analogy of the flawed nature of this process when she addressed the council:

[audio:http://www.peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/Klise-03132007-Council.mp3]

Bradley would just as soon forget about the past and start moving forward from here. Forget about the process that got us here and look at their commitments for the future. Consider their “commitment” to the neighborhood, measured in dollars invested and conditions agreed to, like this one from staff:

Bradley University shall continue the positive ongoing communication strategy with surrounding neighborhood associations. Prior to each implementation of the improvements in the official development plan, Bradley University shall initiate timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations. Bradley University shall work with the neighborhood to stabilize and improve off-premise student housing, increase home ownership in nearby neighborhoods, and encourage a mutually beneficial campus-neighborhood relationship.

That sounds lovely, but there’s no enforcement mechanism. Ask yourself this, if Bradley started stonewalling the neighborhoods tomorrow in direct violation of this clause, what would happen? What could or would the city do? If past actions are any indication, the answer is nothing. Consider that the city couldn’t get Bradley to pave a gravel parking lot for the past 15 years. If they can’t enforce something as simple, obvious, and tangible as that, how are they ever going to enforce something as nebulous as “initiat[ing] timely discussion with the impacted and nearby neighborhood associations”?

By passing this ordinance last night, the city council tacitly endorsed Bradley’s tactics and offered no real assurance to the surrounding neighborhoods that this wouldn’t happen again in another 10-15 years. Instead of “removing doubt,” like Mrs. Klise said the city indicated was the purpose of institutional zoning, last night’s action has increased doubt. And that doubt will lead to more speculation along Cooper and other surrounding streets.

There were a lot of good sound bites about communication and neighborhood stability, but it was all belied by a vote that gave Bradley everything it wanted, and left the neighborhoods with the same empty promises they’ve had all along. Bradley’s plan should have been denied.

Elections, Peoria Public Schools

“Turn on, tune in, drop out,” or, “My evening at the candidates forum”

10 Comments

Computer antisocializationTonight, my whole family went to a candidates forum so we could hear the candidates for the upcoming school board election. It was held at award-winning Whittier School near my house on the West Bluff. I normally don’t take my whole family, but this forum had a twist: it offered “free childcare.” When you have three kids, that’s very attractive.

So we all trekked over there, arriving a little late as is normal when you have three kids. We were directed to the “computer room” for the “free childcare.” Our kids are 6, 3, and 1, so I figured perhaps part of the room had computers for older children, but then part of the room would be like a kindergarten room for younger children.

Nope. When we walked in, there they all were — kids of all ages, headphones on, sitting neatly in straight rows, staring at their computer screens. Each computer was turned on, the kids were tuned in, and they’d all dropped out of any social interaction whatsoever, each absorbed in his or her own individual virtual universe.

My children have never turned on a computer or played on a computer (unless you count James’s recent exploits with my laptop). James stacks blocks, Margaret colors pictures, and Jacqueline reads books. So, we asked if the room next door — the library — was open, or if there was anything for James to do. Nope. The kiddies could either sit with a computer or their parents for an hour.

I suppose you get what you pay for. Free childcare = computerized babysitting.

I’m not a big fan of computers in primary schools; I think they’re unnecessary and possibly even harmful to a child’s development. But even setting that aside, when you advertise “free childcare,” you expect there to be something for small children. Like a one-year-old. What’s a one-year-old going to do with a computer (besides pour his drink on it)?

So, we tried attending the forum anyway with children in tow, and our kids did quite well the first 45 minutes or so. Then they started getting bored and wanting to run around, and Jamie started getting rather noisy. So we left, much to the relief of the rest of the attendees, I’m sure.

The forum itself was very good. Five candidates attended: Beth Akeson, Alicia Butler, Linda Butler, Bill O’Brien, and Rachael Parker. Alicia Butler had to leave early for another engagement. I didn’t get to hear everything, but I did catch their positions on a couple of hot-button issues:

School in the Park

All the candidates except for Linda Butler emphatically said they were against putting a school on the corner of Glen Oak Park. Linda Butler didn’t commit herself one way or the other, saying instead that there should have been more public interaction and more communication so that they could have made an informed decision.

Properties on Prospect

All the candidates except for Linda Butler and Alicia Butler stated they believe the properties on Prospect should be sold, not razed. They felt the people and the park district had spoken, and the district shouldn’t continue to continue to hang on to these expensive properties. Akeson mentioned they could either sell the property to the park district or fix up the homes and put them on the market. Linda Butler referred to the fact that the Master Facilities Plan includes Glen Oak Park as a possible site for a future school and never really answered the question squarely, leading me to believe she favors the park school. Alicia Butler had already left when this question was raised.

Edison School Contract

O’Brien stated that he thought Edison schools were good, but financially draining. He suggested that if the school board would terminate the program, then businesses, corporations, and/or foundations would step forward to fund it and it wouldn’t have to be funded out of the district’s budget. Akeson and Linda Butler believed the Edison program could be replicated by District 150 without having to contract with Edison itself. Parker wouldn’t commit one way or the other, stating that her position would depend on the cost of the Edison program — she apparently is unaware of the cost. She might want to look that up for future forums. Alicia Butler, again, had already left.

There were two school board members in the audience: Martha Ross and Jim Stowell (aka “Gypsy Jim” for his ability to divine the will of the “silent majority”). I also noticed that WCBU’s Tanya Koonce was there covering the event, but I didn’t see any other media (I have to assume someone was there from the Journal Star, but I don’t know who).

Elections, Peoria Public Schools

School Board candidates forum

2 Comments

UPDATE: School Board candidate Beth Akeson verified that the school district doesn’t have a digital map of the representative district boundaries, but she sent me this picture of the map. It’s not quite detailed enough to be able to read all the street names, but it will give you a rough idea of where the boundaries are. The map image is about 1MB.

ForumFor all of you who will be voting on new second district representatives to the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education next month, I encourage you to attend a candidates forum tonight (Tuesday, March 13) at Whittier Primary School, 1619 W. Fredonia Ave., at 6:30 p.m. Free babysitting will be provided.

You don’t need me to tell you how important it is to have competent, inclusive leadership on the school board. Many people have been up in arms about recent decisions the district has been making. This is our chance as voters to make our voices heard.

Even though voter turnout is at an all time low, it doesn’t matter. Voters on election day are the one “vocal minority” that can’t be ignored.

Cults, Dunlap, Gary Sandberg

The Gary V. Sandberg Project

8 Comments

Gary V. Sandberg ProjectFile this one under “Cults.”

Dunlap High School recently had a Battle of the Bands competition. The winner? “The Gary V. Sandberg Project.”

Really. I’m not making this up. I couldn’t possibly ever, in a million years, make this up.

The Gary V. Sandberg Project is a bluegrass band, and they even have their own MySpace page (who doesn’t?). Apparently, there’s a group of kids at Dunlap High who watch every Peoria City Council meeting, then get together to discuss them. And Gary is their hero.

They even wrote a song about him called, “Our Friend.” You can hear a recording of it on their page, and here’s a live version:

If you can’t make out the lyrics, they are:

Who’s the man on the TV with the smiling face?
Who’s the man with the filled up trophy case?
Who’s the man who eats all his greens?
Who’s the man with a parrot named Jellybeans?

He’s our friend, he’s our friend
But he doesn’t even know it, he’s our friend
He’s our friend, he’s our friend
Won’t you be his friend too?

Sand is on the beach, ice is on the berg
But it doesn’t even matter because we’re friends

Who’s the man with the black bow tie?
Who’s the man who will tell no lie?
Who’s the man with the poofed up hair?
Who’s the man you cannot scare?

He’s our friend, he’s our friend
But he doesn’t even know it, he’s our friend
He’s our friend, he’s our friend
Won’t you be his friend too?

Sand is on the beach, ice is on the berg
But it doens’t even matter because we’re friends

Gary was invited to the Battle of the Bands competition to introduce the group that bears his name. He obliged. It was the first time he had heard them, and he was truly moved by their homage to his work on the council.

Wow. I think if I were Gary, I’d be flattered, but would probably take out an order of protection just to be on the safe side….

How long do you think it will be before Markley and Luciano are playing this song regularly on their WMBD afternoon show?

Kellar Branch, Peoria Journal Star, Village of Peoria Heights

Heights hears about trolley; also, I meet a JS editor

14 Comments

Trolley in MemphisThere was a special meeting of Peoria Heights’ Board of Trustees tonight. The topic? The Kellar Branch. They wanted to hear from Pioneer Railcorp and the Illinois Prairie Railroad Foundation (IPRRF) about the possibility of running a trolley on the embattled line.

Mike Carr, CEO of Pioneer, gave the main presentation to the board and Sharon Deckard, President of IPRRF, gave some additional info at the end. Then they both answered questions from the board and the audience. You can see a PDF copy (2MB file) of their PowerPoint presentation* by clicking here.

Heights Mayor Mark Allen explained that this was an informational meeting meant to help the Village Board make an informed decision about the future of the Kellar Branch. In two weeks, on March 28, there will be another special meeting where the Park District and trail advocates will be allowed to present their plan for a trail only going through the corridor and why they think that will be best for the Heights.

Carr and Deckard explained how trolleys had been successful in large and small cities and had in all cases led to economic development along the trolley rail’s corridor. In addition to the benefits of a tourist trolley, it was also emphasized that increased congestion, city expansion, and rising gas prices would lead to the demand for more public transportation options in the future, and having a rail corridor through town is an asset to preserve for future commuter use.

Judging from the reaction of the audience, which was heavily stacked with trail supporters, not many people believed the presentation. But hey, they all laughed at Christopher Columbus when he said the world was round, as Gershwin would say. Mayor Allen explained that a feasibility study would have to be done before a final decision was made. But now’s the time to do it — before the tracks are torn up — because once they’re gone, they’re gone forever.

Well, technically, the land lease with the Park District allows the proposed trail to be reconverted back to rail use at any point in the future, but the costs of relaying the tracks and reimbursing the Park District for construction of the trail would be so astronomical as to make that option completely unfeasible.

After the meeting, I went to Peoria Pizza Works with Sharon Deckard, Gary Sandberg, David Jordan, a couple other railfans, and — are you ready for this? — Christine Smith of the Journal Star Editorial Board and her date. It was actually quite fun to get to talk to her, since I regularly lambaste the editorial page of Peoria’s newspaper of record.

You know what? I like her. Even though we don’t agree, and probably never will, about the Kellar Branch, she was very personable and likes to play devil’s advocate, which is one of my favorite pasttimes. I found out that she and Bailey (the senior editor of the PJS) both read my blog, which was flattering, although one could make the argument that they just do that as part of their job. Fair enough. It’s still nice to be read. 🙂

Since Shelley Epstein retired, there have been only two editors — Smith and Bailey. I joked that if one more editor left, we’d all know who was writing the unsigned editorials. I found out that Bailey edits Smith’s editorials, so that’s why they all sound like Bailey’s voice to some degree. I also found out that Smith wrote the “Bradley is not the bogeyman” editorial. We talked a little about that… but I digress.

Smith thinks the trolley idea is completely crazy. She doesn’t think it will get any ridership — that no one is going to be interested in riding a trolley… at least, not enough people to make it profitable. But she did admit that it’s worth doing a feasibility study on it; she just thinks it will vindicate her belief that it’s totally nuts. I say, bring it on.

*Full disclosure: I created the slides for the PowerPoint presentation. And yes, Pioneer will be paying me for my work in creating those slides. This is the first time I’ve done any work for them or received any payment of monetary or non-monetary value.

The Peoria Chronicle

Chronicle computer kaput

7 Comments

GravesDisaster befell the Peoria Chronicle technology department on Sunday, March 11, 2007.

My beloved one-year-old son James found a glass of soda tonight and proceeded to dump it onto my laptop keyboard this afternoon — a cold-blooded execution of the most expensive and data-sensitive electronic gadget I own. My only hope is that the hard drive and the data it contains are salvageable.

Please observe a moment of silence for my departed Dell Inspiron 1100. It served me and my wife well these past several years and did not deserve such an ignoble death.

I’m posting from my work computer this evening. I came in to look at new Dell laptops online, how long they take to ship, and what the credit terms are. I won’t be posting much in the next few days — just what I can post from work before/after working hours. I’ll still be able to get my e-mail over the web at work and other various computers.

R.I.P., my faithful laptop.

UPDATE (3/12): On my lunch break, I bought an enclosure for my laptop’s hard drive and I’m happy to report that all the data is intact.

Bradley University

My humble suggestion for Bradley’s Plan

2 Comments

Campus Plan - BoundariesI was reading Bradley’s plan again that will go before the City Council next Tuesday. I’ve been a pretty harsh critic of the university’s tactics, especially as they impact the Arbor District. But after thinking it over, I’ve come to a couple of conclusions, and subsequently come up with an idea that I, of course, think is brilliant.

First, I believe that there are two issues regarding Bradley’s tactics. One is the way they surreptitiously purchased the properties on Maplewood. But the other has to do with their use of those properties. They want to put a five story parking deck there, right behind the houses on Cooper with nothing more than an alley and 25 feet of buffer separating them.

I’m convinced that the way Bradley acquired the properties on Maplewood might have been forgiven if their use for that land were more reasonable, more suitable as a transition from institutional zoning to residential.

To that end, I’ve devised a compromise. In Bradley’s plan, I noticed that the height of the new student recreational complex is only 48 feet, whereas the parking deck is 66 feet. So, why not switch the two sites? I know this would require some redesign work (especially on the rec center because it’s too wide for the parcel I’m suggesting in its current configuration), but seriously, this has numerous advantages:

  • The recreational complex would, in my plan, be located on the southwest corner of Main and Maplewood. The most obvious advantage is that the height of the buildings going from the new arena to the neighborhood would decline. The new arena (replacing the Fieldhouse) would be 66 feet tall, then the athletic facility would be 48 feet, and then the houses on Cooper which are probably in around 30 feet tall. This would make a more reasonable transition and not feel nearly as oppressive.
  • The parking deck in my scenario would then be located at the northeast corner of Maplewood and Bradley Avenue. If the university didn’t vacate Maplewood, but let it continue to be a through-street, this would allow deck traffic to dissipate in three directions: west on Bradley to Western, east on Bradley to University, and north on Maplewood to Main. This would ease the congestion of constricting traffic flow to Main only (the way the current plan does).
  • This would make Main Street more attractive. There’s nothing uglier than a parking deck right on your main drag.
  • The recreational center will be closer to Bradley Park, making it easier to access all the outdoor amenities it has to offer students.
  • The parking would be moved to the interior of the institutional boundaries — in fact, the parking would be kept within the current N1 boundary and further away from the neighbors.
  • By changing a major component of their plan, the university would take the first step toward rebuilding trust with the neighbors, as it would mark the first time it made major concessions for the sake of neighborhood stability.

I’m still not condoning the university’s encroachment into the Arbor District. Ideally, I’d like to see them come up with a way to do all the stuff they want to do within their existing boundary and leave Maplewood alone. But I’m offering this idea as a compromise.

And I know Bradley won’t voluntarily do this, either. So, I guess I’m suggesting that the City Council press the issue. I’m not suggesting that they take a confrontational tack with the university, but rather come at it from a collaborative angle. That they say, “Bradley, we’re excited that you’re offering more amenities for your students — it’s good for Bradley, and it’s good for Peoria. We want to see you succeed. All we need to do is reconfigure things a little to make it more suitable for transitioning into the neighborhoods, because strong neighborhoods are also important to Peoria and Bradley….”

And then Bradley will squawk about time lines and when they can build and all that stuff. But you know what? This is a 15-20 year plan. A couple months delay isn’t going to blow it out of the water. Yes, it will be a big inconvenience and time lines will have to be redone and costs will go up, but I think the neighbors are worth a little inconvenience on the university’s part, don’t you?

All the plans are only on paper at this point and can still be changed with relatively little expense compared to the total cost of the construction project. Why not explore some other options that would support the neighborhoods a little more?